Reply With Quote
If they knew we were going into Iraq they won't have re-enlisted!
Draft Jenna...just like you did Cindy's son!
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/52321.htm
I thought none of our troops wanted to be there, everyone wants out, and they're all there for no reason?* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.
Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.
This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft. Where are the headlines?
* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.
* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment stands at 102 percent of requirements.
* And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30. (I've even heard a rumor that Al Franken and Tim Robbins signed up — but let's wait for confirmation on that.)
Dan, you always post about recruiting numbers, I never see you post about retainment numbers, so I'd figure I'd help out. Just figured maybe you forgot on this one
Where is Cindy Sheehan when you need her?
If they knew we were going into Iraq they won't have re-enlisted!
Draft Jenna...just like you did Cindy's son!
Two words: Stop Loss. It's pretty damn easy to keep people in the military when you can, well, keep them in the military, without them signing or agreeing to anything.
Two words:
First word: Idiot - def. - he who probably does not read articles before replying to them.
Second word: Re-enlistment - def. - word that idiot probably does not know meaning of. Inspite of alleged past military service.
You didn't read the article very carefully. Either that or you don't realize that stop loss and re-enlistment are two different things. They can force you to stay longer with stop loss. No one can force you to re-enlist.
Maybe I missed something, but aren't the guys re-enlisting well aware of the war that they have been fighting in?
Also, no disrespect to Cindy's son, but this is a volunteer military and Jenna didn't volunteer....Cindy's son did!
No...Bush is tricking them....it's W's fault.
He also tricked Cindy Sheehan the first time he met her and tricked her againt when two of his represntatives met her in Crawford.
Yeah...but if Cindy's son had had known we were going into Iraq in March of 2003, he wouldn't have re-enlisted in June of 2003 and volunteered to go on the mission that killed him in April of 2004...so therefore it was like he was drafted against his will, Bush then murdered him... and Jenna should be drafted and murdered too.Also, no disrespect to Cindy's son, but this is a volunteer military and Jenna didn't volunteer....Cindy's son did!
If you don't understand that you are clearly ed in the head. Neocon! Nazi! War for Oil! Imperialist! Haliburton!
wow....are you a grown man?
it's funny.. I am sure this story didn't run on the network news at all...
I think they were all over robertson's comments... like he was president or something.. lol..
yeah, because you've been there and know how it goes.. stfu..
Of Course, re-enlistment bonuses of up to $100,000 for some specialities have nothing to do with the high re-enlistment rates, right?
Not to mention that these true heros, like Casey Sheehan, feel bad leaving their boys back in Iraq short-handed because there aren't enough young, conservative, chicken-hawks enlisting.
not for grunts.. try pilots and doctors.
Of Course, re-enlistment bonuses of up to $100,000 for some specialities have nothing to do with the high re-enlistment rates, right?
Not to mention that these true heros, like Casey Sheehan, feel bad leaving their boys back in Iraq short-handed because there aren't enough young, conservative, chicken-hawks enlisting.
and if casey wanted to ets, his boys would have understood.
Grunts get bonuses of $5,000-$10,000. Not $100,000, but when you got nothing but a minimum wage job lined-up anyway, $10,000 is $10,000.
Maybe Casey's boys would have understood, but Casey obviously couldn't have.
try little to less than 10k...
Here's an article, which is quite nuanced and therefore may escape most super-patriot, red-state conservatives who post here rather than go fight in the war they support so vehementlhy, that talks about the poor vs rich, uneducated vs educated profile distribution of the military.
It was very clear during the VN war, with conscription and/or lottery in effect, that the poor-uneducated were bearing the brunt of the load as the rich/educated were able to evade military service, like super-warriors shrub (he even evaded his joke service in the Air National gurad) and head (had better things to do than die in VN, got something like 5 service deferments).
After the VN war and with the "all-volunteer" army, military service was chosen more by poor and uneducated as a secure paycheck, room, board, and structure to their life (had maybe living at home) vs being poor, unemployed, working poor (ie, part-time work or minimum wage work). Note this article mentions the huge drop off in black enlistments since the war started, young black men being a disastrous group that would seek the military as employer of last resort and for its benefits, until those "benefits" included combat and death.
The point is very clear, the Repugs, following the shining example of shrub/ head/etc, are all for fighting a bogus war as long as it's not their kids dying in it.
==========================================
washingtonpost.com
Military's Recruiting Troubles Extend to Affluent War Supporters
By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, August 22, 2005; 8:00 AM
There was an eye-opening article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette a few days ago that explored the increasing difficulty the military is having recruiting young people to enlist. As has been well reported in many newspapers, including The Washington Post, the Army and Marines are having a particularly tough time meeting recruitment objectives, in part because of Americans' concern about the war in Iraq.
When you dig deeper into the reason for this phenomenon, it turns out that parents of potential soldiers and sailors are becoming one of the biggest obstacles facing military recruiters. Even top military officials acknowledge this and unveiled a new series of ads this spring targeted at "influencers" such as parents, teachers and coaches.
But the Post-Gazette raises another issue. There has been much talk about the relationship between race and ethnicity and military recruitment. But what about social and economic class? Are wealthier Americans, who are more likely to be Republicans and therefore more likely to support the war, stepping up to the plate and urging their children and others from their communities to enlist?
Unfortunately, there has been no definitive study on this subject. But it appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.
The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.
But she made it clear that her support only went so far.
"Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people."
The Post-Gazette piece focused on parental disapproval of military recruitment efforts, and dealt only tangentially with the larger question of class. What we do know is that recruiting is down across the board and that both the Army and Marines have fallen significantly behind their recruiting goals.
This is what the Army's hired advertising company, Leo Burnett, had to say about the ads targeting influencers that it began running in April: " led 'Dinner Conversation,' 'Two Things,' 'Good Training' and 'Listening' (Spanish-language ad), the commercials portray moments ranging from a son telling his mother he's found someone to pay for college, to a father praising his son who has just returned from Basic Training for the positive ways in which he's changed. They capture the questions, hopes and concerns parents have about a career serving the United States of America and include families from many different backgrounds."
I asked Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins for further explanation on the intent of the ads.
"Clearly it was to talk to influencers," she said. She said studies have shown that today's young people yearn to serve their country in one way or another. The problem is that today the people who influence their decisions "are less likely than they were in past generations to recommend [military service]."
Why?
"In part because the economy is strong," said Robbins. "In part because they are concerned about the war. And in part because fewer of them have a direct relationship with the military or have ever served."
So would it be logical to conclude that, if the strong economy is one of the reasons it is more difficult to recruit, the most affluent parents should be the most difficult to reach? After all, their children have more options, including college, than less affluent parents? And if that's true, isn't it somewhat ironic that the military is paying millions of dollars ultimately to influence the behavior of the parents who are among the most likely to be supportive of the war in Iraq?
"I disagree with your premise," Robbins said, arguing that the military is represented strongly across the board by people of all income levels and faces challenges in recruiting at all income levels.
Referring to the Post-Gazette anecdote, she said, "One woman saying stupid things does not a trend make."
Actually, I did have a premise, but it wasn't unshakable. But because neither the Army nor the Defense Department keeps detailed information about the household incomes of the people who join, it was not easy to prove or disprove.
So let's approach the issue this way: In the 2004 election, household income was a pretty decent indicator of how one might vote. Voters from households making more than $50,000 a year favored Bush 56 percent to 43 percent. Voters making $50,000 or less favored Kerry 55 to 44 percent. Median household income as of 2003 was $43,318, according to the U.S. Census.
The wealthier you become, apparently, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The GOP advantage grows more pronounced for people from households making more than $100,000. People from households with incomes exceeding that amount voted for Bush over Kerry by 58 percent to 41 percent. Those from households making less than $100,000 favored Kerry over Bush 51 to 49 percent. And nearly two-thirds of voters from households making more than $200,000 favored Bush over Kerry.
Those making more than $100,000 made up only 18 percent of the electorate, which explains why Bush won by a narrow 2.5 percentage points in the general election.
This raises all sorts of complicated socioeconomic questions, such as whether the rich expect others to fight their wars for them. Or, asked another way, are they more likely to support the war in Iraq because their families are less likely to carry part of the burden?
Certainly, there are no absolutes here. Many of the wealthy are Democrats, some of whom support the war. Some of whom oppose it. Many of the poor and working class are Republicans, and support the GOP on Iraq.
By looking at long-term trends, it seems logical that some of those most likely to support Bush and his Iraq policy are also those least likely to encourage their children to go into the military at wartime. And it raises questions, such as, if you are among those most likely to support the war, shouldn't you be among those most likely to encourage your child to serve in the military? Shouldn't your socioeconomic group be the most receptive to the recruiters' call? And would there be a recruitment problem at all if the affluent put their money where their mouth is?
Several social scientists have studied the question of economics and class in military enlistment. Many of these studies don't look at the officer ranks, which might tend to counter some of the class argument. But officers, of course, make up a relatively small portion of the military.
Among the more recent studies was one done last year by Robert Cushing, a retired professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. He tracked those who died in Iraq by geography and found that whites from small, mostly poor, rural areas made up a disproportionately large percentage of the casualties in Iraq.
I talked to two other academicians who have studied the issue. Their conclusions, though reached prior to the war in Iraq, were helpful because of their understanding of the historical implications of the class question.
David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organizations at the University of Maryland, said contrary to conventional wisdom both the poorest and the wealthiest people are underrepresented at the bottom of the military ranks, for completely different reasons. This trend held for both from the conscription years of Vietnam through at least the late 1990s.
Poorer people, he said, are likely to be kept out of the military by a range of factors, including higher likelihood of having a criminal record or academic deficiencies or health problems.
Back during Vietnam, "the top [economic class] had access for means of staying out of the military," said Segal. "The National Guard was known to be a well-to-do white man's club back then. People knew if you if joined the guard you weren't going to go to Vietnam. That included people like Dan Quayle and our current commander in chief. If you were rich, you might have found it easier to get a doctor to certify you as having a condition that precluded you from service. You could get a medical deferment with braces on your teeth, so you would go get braces -- something that was very expensive back then. The wealthy had more access to educational and occupational deferments."
Today's affluent merely see themselves as having more options and are not as enticed by financial incentives, such as money for college, Segal said.
The Army was able to provide socioeconomic data only for the 2002 fiscal year. Its numbers confirm Segal's findings that service members in the highest and lowest income brackets are underrepresented, but because those numbers chronicle enlistments in the year immediately following the 2001 terrorist attacks, it's difficult to ascertain whether this was a normal recruiting year.
Segal and Jerald G. Bachman, a research professor at the University of Michigan's Ins ute for Social Research, have studied the correlation between a parental education levels and likelihood for their offspring to enlist.
Examining data from early to mid-1990s, they created five categories, with one being the lowest level. Perhaps not surprisingly, they found the children of the most-educated parents -- those with post-graduate degrees -- were the least likely to join the military. The children of parents with high school diplomas were three times more likely to enlist.
One of the interesting phenomenon of today's politics is that, in general, Republicans tend to be more educated on average than Democrats, with a larger percentage either holding a bachelor's degree or having attended some college. But Democrats represent a larger portion of the super-educated -- that is, those holding graduate degrees. So Democrats are made up of the least and the most educated, with Republicans congregated largely near, but not at, the top.
So how did those near the top of the educational tree do in Segal's and Bachman's study? They were half as likely as those in group two to enlist. And because there are far more people who have been to college or have bachelor's degrees than there are people who have post-graduate degrees, the former group has far more political influence, just in sheer numbers.
While there have been changes in racial and ethnic enlistment trends, with the number of black recruits dropping precipitously since the Iraq war, Segal and Bachman said they've seen nothing to indicate significant changes in the class -- of which education levels is a prime indicator -- trends in the military.
Journalists can get themselves in trouble by drawing simplistic conclusions based on less-than-exhaustive research, and we won't do so here. But we can at least raise the question of whether the rich are more likely to support the war because their loved ones are less likely to die in it.
Comments can be sent to Terry Neal at [email protected].
© 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
Opinion > Fact
Sorry to disapoint you liberals, but people actually like being in the military and fighting for our country
OMG. Words can't describe the level of stupidity in that article. All that effort prattling on about the "fascinating" discoveries of social scientists and the tedious breakdown of the income brackets of those who voted for Bush yet no mention of the fact that actual people in the military supported Bush over Kerry by 73% to 17% !!!!!! The author stupidly points out that the wealthier you become the more likely you are to vote republican, but ignores the well known fact that military personnel are also more likely to vote republican?
The writer's whole stupid premise that the war is only supported by people who don't go to war blows up in his face!! The opposite is true. The war is most supported by the people fighting it. WHAT A MORON.
Also, this idiot's "investigative reporting" didn't uncover the fact that many, perhaps most, young people join the military not because they couldn't get into college, but because they wanted an adventure. Not everyone is interested in going to college and the fact the someone doesn't have a formal degree does not necessarily make them "uneducated" as this author suggests. This jerk should have taken the time to look up some military polls. There is a wealth of data available from the many extensive studies done on military at udes. Google "military at udes" "surveys" "polls" and you'll find a very lengthy report with a percentage breakdown on reasons servicemen listed for joining the military. Also, military service tends to run in families. I was raised in the military and well over 60% of the other military brats at my high school reunion chose a life in the military.
I can't believe some of these reporters have jobs. What a f*cking idiot.
that is why joined jelly.. my mother said, do something for at least one year before you go to college so you won't just party it up and do all the dumb stuff most first year college students do. i chose the military because i'd wanted to join all my life. had a great ing time...and now that i am going to college, i am finishing a 5 year plan in 3 years.
Good for you. And I am sure you are a better man for it
And here comes Boutons in 5..4..3..2..1..
I'm interested in knowing where you got your 73% support for W number. Support for Republicans has always been strong in the military, but the only breakdown I have seen is the results on CNN which shows that W received only 57% of military and ex-military votes. Maybe you got your number from this unscientific poll from USA Today?OMG. Words can't describe the level of stupidity in that article. All that effort prattling on about the "fascinating" discoveries of social scientists and the tedious breakdown of the income brackets of those who voted for Bush yet no mention of the fact that actual people in the military supported Bush over Kerry by 73% to 17% !!!!!! The author stupidly points out that the wealthier you become the more likely you are to vote republican, but ignores the well known fact that military personnel are also more likely to vote republican?
The writer's whole stupid premise that the war is only supported by people who don't go to war blows up in his face!! The opposite is true. The war is most supported by the people fighting it. WHAT A MORON.
No loaded survey there, eh?In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.
LOL
you almost made the perfect neocon asshole response
it should have been
"sorry real americans actually like fighting for our freedom, unlike you leftyleftists"
you just have to put sorry in front of your sentences and then start without transition then talk about how youre a better american, more patriotic, and braver. then you can allude to that youre whiter, more christian and richer
thats if you want to go by the book
How is it loaded?No loaded survey there, eh?
The base was people serving in the Military. Trying to survey an equal number of Republicans and Democrats would sort of defeat the purpose of the survey, don't you think? The object was to survey 4,000+ full-time and part-time troops.
You would only use Republican/Democrat as a variable if you were trying to find patterns within each party affiliation, or differences between the opinions of troops within different affiliations. This survey was meant as a study of troops as a whole, not Republican Troops vs. Democrat Troops.
Last edited by Spurminator; 08-24-2005 at 01:18 PM.
They survey is loaded because of its inherent assumption that the 4000+ full time and part-time troops that were lucky enough to be surveyed represents a statistically backed break-down of known political affiliation of the entire army. Which we know from the actual numbers from CNN isn't true. If every poll was done this way they would not be statistically reliable.
The survey would have had to included a large number of survey of 4000+ troops with differing party affiliation to have been taken seriously.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
